Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 711	control, N = 351	treatment, N = 361	p-value2
age	71	50.78 ± 12.63 (25 - 74)	50.48 ± 13.41 (25 - 74)	51.07 ± 12.01 (31 - 72)	0.846
gender	71				0.736
f		50 (70%)	24 (69%)	26 (72%)
m		21 (30%)	11 (31%)	10 (28%)
occupation	71				0.965
day_training		1 (1.4%)	1 (2.9%)	0 (0%)
full_time		7 (9.9%)	4 (11%)	3 (8.3%)
homemaker		6 (8.5%)	3 (8.6%)	3 (8.3%)
other		2 (2.8%)	0 (0%)	2 (5.6%)
part_time		13 (18%)	6 (17%)	7 (19%)
retired		15 (21%)	7 (20%)	8 (22%)
self_employ		2 (2.8%)	1 (2.9%)	1 (2.8%)
student		1 (1.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (2.8%)
t_and_e		2 (2.8%)	1 (2.9%)	1 (2.8%)
unemploy		22 (31%)	12 (34%)	10 (28%)
marital	71				0.928
cohabitation		1 (1.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (2.8%)
divore		8 (11%)	5 (14%)	3 (8.3%)
married		15 (21%)	7 (20%)	8 (22%)
none		41 (58%)	20 (57%)	21 (58%)
seperation		3 (4.2%)	2 (5.7%)	1 (2.8%)
widow		3 (4.2%)	1 (2.9%)	2 (5.6%)
edu	71				0.983
bachelor		21 (30%)	9 (26%)	12 (33%)
diploma		12 (17%)	7 (20%)	5 (14%)
hd_ad		3 (4.2%)	2 (5.7%)	1 (2.8%)
postgraduate		6 (8.5%)	3 (8.6%)	3 (8.3%)
primary		5 (7.0%)	2 (5.7%)	3 (8.3%)
secondary_1_3		7 (9.9%)	3 (8.6%)	4 (11%)
secondary_4_5		15 (21%)	8 (23%)	7 (19%)
secondary_6_7		2 (2.8%)	1 (2.9%)	1 (2.8%)
fam_income	71				0.937
10001_12000		4 (5.6%)	1 (2.9%)	3 (8.3%)
12001_14000		4 (5.6%)	2 (5.7%)	2 (5.6%)
14001_16000		5 (7.0%)	2 (5.7%)	3 (8.3%)
16001_18000		2 (2.8%)	1 (2.9%)	1 (2.8%)
18001_20000		4 (5.6%)	3 (8.6%)	1 (2.8%)
20001_above		11 (15%)	6 (17%)	5 (14%)
2001_4000		9 (13%)	6 (17%)	3 (8.3%)
4001_6000		10 (14%)	4 (11%)	6 (17%)
6001_8000		7 (9.9%)	4 (11%)	3 (8.3%)
8001_10000		6 (8.5%)	2 (5.7%)	4 (11%)
below_2000		9 (13%)	4 (11%)	5 (14%)
medication	71	61 (86%)	31 (89%)	30 (83%)	0.735
onset_duration	71	15.37 ± 11.52 (0 - 56)	16.98 ± 12.86 (1 - 56)	13.80 ± 9.99 (0 - 35)	0.248
onset_age	71	35.41 ± 13.83 (14 - 64)	33.50 ± 12.73 (14 - 58)	37.26 ± 14.76 (15 - 64)	0.254
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 711	control, N = 351	treatment, N = 361	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	71	3.14 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)	3.14 ± 1.29 (1 - 5)	3.14 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)	0.989
recovery_stage_b	71	17.94 ± 2.63 (9 - 23)	17.86 ± 2.70 (9 - 23)	18.03 ± 2.60 (13 - 23)	0.787
ras_confidence	71	30.34 ± 4.83 (19 - 43)	29.71 ± 4.23 (19 - 40)	30.94 ± 5.34 (20 - 43)	0.287
ras_willingness	71	12.11 ± 1.97 (7 - 15)	11.94 ± 1.89 (9 - 15)	12.28 ± 2.05 (7 - 15)	0.477
ras_goal	71	17.52 ± 3.01 (12 - 24)	17.51 ± 3.00 (12 - 24)	17.53 ± 3.06 (12 - 24)	0.985
ras_reliance	71	13.17 ± 2.83 (8 - 20)	12.89 ± 2.60 (8 - 18)	13.44 ± 3.05 (8 - 20)	0.409
ras_domination	71	9.93 ± 2.26 (3 - 15)	10.43 ± 1.96 (6 - 15)	9.44 ± 2.45 (3 - 14)	0.067
symptom	71	30.10 ± 9.89 (14 - 56)	31.00 ± 9.76 (14 - 52)	29.22 ± 10.07 (15 - 56)	0.453
slof_work	71	22.63 ± 4.89 (10 - 30)	22.51 ± 4.43 (15 - 30)	22.75 ± 5.37 (10 - 30)	0.841
slof_relationship	71	25.66 ± 6.04 (11 - 35)	25.37 ± 6.28 (13 - 35)	25.94 ± 5.88 (11 - 35)	0.693
satisfaction	71	20.72 ± 6.89 (5 - 32)	19.26 ± 6.62 (5 - 29)	22.14 ± 6.94 (5 - 32)	0.078
mhc_emotional	71	11.25 ± 3.85 (3 - 18)	10.89 ± 3.42 (3 - 17)	11.61 ± 4.24 (4 - 18)	0.431
mhc_social	71	15.06 ± 5.48 (6 - 30)	15.37 ± 5.56 (7 - 30)	14.75 ± 5.47 (6 - 26)	0.636
mhc_psychological	71	22.30 ± 6.12 (6 - 36)	21.94 ± 5.79 (10 - 36)	22.64 ± 6.48 (6 - 36)	0.635
resilisnce	71	16.55 ± 4.54 (6 - 27)	16.26 ± 4.37 (6 - 24)	16.83 ± 4.75 (7 - 27)	0.597
social_provision	71	13.65 ± 2.97 (5 - 20)	13.26 ± 2.56 (8 - 20)	14.03 ± 3.32 (5 - 20)	0.278
els_value_living	71	17.28 ± 2.95 (5 - 25)	16.66 ± 2.38 (12 - 22)	17.89 ± 3.34 (5 - 25)	0.079
els_life_fulfill	71	12.83 ± 3.30 (4 - 20)	11.89 ± 3.05 (5 - 17)	13.75 ± 3.32 (4 - 20)	0.016
els	71	30.11 ± 5.62 (9 - 45)	28.54 ± 4.45 (20 - 36)	31.64 ± 6.25 (9 - 45)	0.019
social_connect	71	27.03 ± 9.52 (8 - 48)	27.74 ± 8.25 (8 - 45)	26.33 ± 10.68 (8 - 48)	0.537
shs_agency	71	14.48 ± 4.98 (3 - 24)	13.89 ± 4.64 (3 - 21)	15.06 ± 5.29 (3 - 24)	0.326
shs_pathway	71	16.62 ± 3.98 (4 - 24)	16.23 ± 3.85 (8 - 24)	17.00 ± 4.11 (4 - 23)	0.418
shs	71	31.10 ± 8.49 (7 - 47)	30.11 ± 8.13 (13 - 45)	32.06 ± 8.83 (7 - 47)	0.339
esteem	71	12.66 ± 1.51 (10 - 18)	12.86 ± 1.57 (10 - 18)	12.47 ± 1.44 (10 - 16)	0.287
mlq_search	71	14.92 ± 3.36 (3 - 21)	14.80 ± 3.17 (6 - 21)	15.03 ± 3.57 (3 - 21)	0.777
mlq_presence	71	13.52 ± 4.15 (3 - 21)	13.51 ± 3.57 (5 - 20)	13.53 ± 4.70 (3 - 21)	0.989
mlq	71	28.44 ± 6.69 (6 - 42)	28.31 ± 5.95 (12 - 40)	28.56 ± 7.42 (6 - 42)	0.881
empower	71	19.52 ± 4.15 (6 - 28)	19.11 ± 3.82 (11 - 24)	19.92 ± 4.46 (6 - 28)	0.419
ismi_resistance	71	14.61 ± 2.68 (5 - 20)	14.31 ± 2.27 (11 - 19)	14.89 ± 3.03 (5 - 20)	0.370
ismi_discrimation	71	11.30 ± 3.23 (5 - 19)	12.26 ± 2.86 (5 - 18)	10.36 ± 3.33 (5 - 19)	0.012
sss_affective	71	10.00 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)	10.57 ± 3.49 (3 - 18)	9.44 ± 4.13 (3 - 18)	0.219
sss_behavior	71	9.69 ± 3.97 (3 - 18)	10.49 ± 3.97 (3 - 18)	8.92 ± 3.86 (3 - 18)	0.096
sss_cognitive	71	8.32 ± 4.01 (3 - 18)	8.66 ± 4.26 (3 - 18)	8.00 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)	0.494
sss	71	28.01 ± 10.96 (9 - 54)	29.71 ± 10.56 (9 - 54)	26.36 ± 11.23 (9 - 54)	0.199
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.14	0.206	2.74, 3.55
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.004	0.289	-0.571, 0.563	0.989
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.137	0.290	-0.432, 0.706	0.639
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.208	0.414	-0.604, 1.02	0.618
	Pseudo R square	0.011
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	17.9	0.455	17.0, 18.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.171	0.639	-1.08, 1.42	0.790
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.333	0.608	-1.53, 0.859	0.586
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.861	0.868	-0.840, 2.56	0.326
	Pseudo R square	0.014
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	29.7	0.855	28.0, 31.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.23	1.201	-1.12, 3.58	0.309
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.366	0.820	-1.24, 1.97	0.658
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.252	1.173	-2.05, 2.55	0.831
	Pseudo R square	0.019
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	11.9	0.339	11.3, 12.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.335	0.476	-0.598, 1.27	0.484
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.639	0.322	-1.27, -0.009	0.053
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.477	0.460	-0.424, 1.38	0.305
	Pseudo R square	0.028
ras_goal	(Intercept)	17.5	0.533	16.5, 18.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.013	0.748	-1.45, 1.48	0.986
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.921	0.554	-2.01, 0.164	0.103
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.53	0.792	-0.017, 3.09	0.059
	Pseudo R square	0.022
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	12.9	0.465	12.0, 13.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.559	0.653	-0.720, 1.84	0.394
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.473	0.409	-0.328, 1.27	0.253
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.595	0.585	-0.551, 1.74	0.314
	Pseudo R square	0.038
ras_domination	(Intercept)	10.4	0.374	9.70, 11.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.984	0.525	-2.01, 0.045	0.064
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.587	0.469	-1.51, 0.333	0.218
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.39	0.670	0.078, 2.71	0.044
	Pseudo R square	0.035
symptom	(Intercept)	31.0	1.672	27.7, 34.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.78	2.348	-6.38, 2.82	0.451
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.101	1.185	-2.22, 2.42	0.932
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.746	1.697	-4.07, 2.58	0.662
	Pseudo R square	0.011
slof_work	(Intercept)	22.5	0.834	20.9, 24.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.236	1.171	-2.06, 2.53	0.841
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.697	0.619	-1.91, 0.517	0.267
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.594	0.886	-2.33, 1.14	0.507
	Pseudo R square	0.010
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	25.4	1.013	23.4, 27.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.573	1.423	-2.22, 3.36	0.688
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.02	0.901	-2.79, 0.742	0.262
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.619	1.289	-1.91, 3.15	0.634
	Pseudo R square	0.008
satisfaction	(Intercept)	19.3	1.185	16.9, 21.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.88	1.664	-0.379, 6.14	0.087
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.732	1.188	-1.60, 3.06	0.541
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.19	1.699	-4.52, 2.14	0.488
	Pseudo R square	0.032
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	10.9	0.645	9.62, 12.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.725	0.906	-1.05, 2.50	0.426
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.445	0.542	-0.617, 1.51	0.416
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.11	0.776	-2.63, 0.413	0.161
	Pseudo R square	0.007
mhc_social	(Intercept)	15.4	0.960	13.5, 17.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.621	1.348	-3.26, 2.02	0.646
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.03	0.906	-0.749, 2.80	0.264
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.53	1.296	-4.07, 1.01	0.244
	Pseudo R square	0.015
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	21.9	1.087	19.8, 24.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.696	1.526	-2.29, 3.69	0.650
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.594	1.026	-1.42, 2.61	0.566
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.61	1.468	-4.49, 1.27	0.279
	Pseudo R square	0.004
resilisnce	(Intercept)	16.3	0.734	14.8, 17.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.576	1.030	-1.44, 2.60	0.577
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.180	0.721	-1.23, 1.59	0.804
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.370	1.031	-1.65, 2.39	0.721
	Pseudo R square	0.009
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.3	0.512	12.3, 14.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.771	0.719	-0.639, 2.18	0.287
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.923	0.559	-2.02, 0.172	0.105
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.899	0.799	-0.666, 2.46	0.266
	Pseudo R square	0.042
els_value_living	(Intercept)	16.7	0.497	15.7, 17.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.23	0.698	-0.136, 2.60	0.081
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.273	0.451	-0.611, 1.16	0.548
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.192	0.645	-1.46, 1.07	0.768
	Pseudo R square	0.039
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	11.9	0.523	10.9, 12.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.86	0.734	0.425, 3.30	0.013
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.896	0.489	-0.061, 1.85	0.074
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.883	0.699	-2.25, 0.487	0.213
	Pseudo R square	0.068
els	(Intercept)	28.5	0.915	26.7, 30.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	3.10	1.286	0.576, 5.62	0.018
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.15	0.772	-0.366, 2.66	0.145
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.05	1.105	-3.21, 1.12	0.349
	Pseudo R square	0.064
social_connect	(Intercept)	27.7	1.613	24.6, 30.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.41	2.265	-5.85, 3.03	0.536
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.789	1.146	-1.46, 3.04	0.495
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.976	1.640	-4.19, 2.24	0.555
	Pseudo R square	0.009
shs_agency	(Intercept)	13.9	0.843	12.2, 15.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.17	1.184	-1.15, 3.49	0.326
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.278	0.775	-1.24, 1.80	0.722
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.469	1.109	-1.71, 2.64	0.675
	Pseudo R square	0.020
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	16.2	0.670	14.9, 17.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.771	0.942	-1.07, 2.62	0.415
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.343	0.591	-0.816, 1.50	0.565
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.362	0.846	-2.02, 1.30	0.671
	Pseudo R square	0.007
shs	(Intercept)	30.1	1.427	27.3, 32.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.94	2.005	-1.99, 5.87	0.336
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.624	1.237	-1.80, 3.05	0.617
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.112	1.771	-3.36, 3.58	0.950
	Pseudo R square	0.015
esteem	(Intercept)	12.9	0.239	12.4, 13.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.385	0.336	-1.04, 0.274	0.255
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.160	0.353	-0.532, 0.852	0.653
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.173	0.504	-0.814, 1.16	0.733
	Pseudo R square	0.021
mlq_search	(Intercept)	14.8	0.576	13.7, 15.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.228	0.808	-1.36, 1.81	0.779
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.381	0.668	-1.69, 0.928	0.571
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.347	0.954	-1.52, 2.22	0.718
	Pseudo R square	0.004
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	13.5	0.688	12.2, 14.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.013	0.967	-1.88, 1.91	0.989
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.124	0.737	-1.57, 1.32	0.867
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.253	1.054	-1.81, 2.32	0.812
	Pseudo R square	0.000
mlq	(Intercept)	28.3	1.147	26.1, 30.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.241	1.611	-2.92, 3.40	0.881
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.510	1.263	-2.99, 1.96	0.688
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.597	1.805	-2.94, 4.13	0.742
	Pseudo R square	0.002
empower	(Intercept)	19.1	0.684	17.8, 20.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.802	0.961	-1.08, 2.69	0.406
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.264	0.583	-1.41, 0.879	0.653
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.400	0.834	-2.03, 1.24	0.634
	Pseudo R square	0.010
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	14.3	0.427	13.5, 15.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.575	0.600	-0.601, 1.75	0.341
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.175	0.556	-0.914, 1.26	0.754
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.306	0.793	-1.86, 1.25	0.701
	Pseudo R square	0.009
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	12.3	0.535	11.2, 13.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.90	0.751	-3.37, -0.423	0.014
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.519	0.502	-1.50, 0.465	0.307
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.942	0.718	-0.466, 2.35	0.197
	Pseudo R square	0.062
sss_affective	(Intercept)	10.6	0.627	9.34, 11.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.13	0.881	-2.85, 0.599	0.204
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.201	0.506	-0.790, 1.19	0.694
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.06	0.723	-2.48, 0.354	0.149
	Pseudo R square	0.046
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	10.5	0.636	9.24, 11.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.57	0.893	-3.32, 0.180	0.082
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.311	0.618	-1.52, 0.900	0.617
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.418	0.883	-2.15, 1.31	0.639
	Pseudo R square	0.054
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	8.66	0.663	7.36, 9.96
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.657	0.932	-2.48, 1.17	0.483
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.02	0.510	0.021, 2.02	0.052
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.82	0.730	-3.25, -0.389	0.017
	Pseudo R square	0.039
sss	(Intercept)	29.7	1.791	26.2, 33.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-3.35	2.515	-8.28, 1.58	0.186
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.01	1.303	-1.54, 3.57	0.441
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-3.34	1.865	-6.99, 0.319	0.081
	Pseudo R square	0.050
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.14 (95% CI [2.74, 3.55], t(104) = 15.26, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.97e-03, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.56], t(104) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -3.27e-03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.46])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.71], t(104) = 0.47, p = 0.637; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.58])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.02], t(104) = 0.50, p = 0.616; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.84])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.86 (95% CI [16.97, 18.75], t(104) = 39.25, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.08, 1.42], t(104) = 0.27, p = 0.789; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.53])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.53, 0.86], t(104) = -0.55, p = 0.584; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.32])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.84, 2.56], t(104) = 0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.96])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.71 (95% CI [28.04, 31.39], t(104) = 34.75, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.23, 95% CI [-1.12, 3.58], t(104) = 1.02, p = 0.306; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.71])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.97], t(104) = 0.45, p = 0.656; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-2.05, 2.55], t(104) = 0.21, p = 0.830; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.50])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.94 (95% CI [11.28, 12.61], t(104) = 35.23, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.27], t(104) = 0.70, p = 0.482; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.63])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.27, -8.72e-03], t(104) = -1.99, p = 0.047; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.63, -4.34e-03])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.38], t(104) = 1.04, p = 0.300; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.69])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.51 (95% CI [16.47, 18.56], t(104) = 32.89, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-1.45, 1.48], t(104) = 0.02, p = 0.986; Std. beta = 4.24e-03, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.46])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-2.01, 0.16], t(104) = -1.66, p = 0.096; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.05])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.53, 95% CI [-0.02, 3.09], t(104) = 1.94, p = 0.053; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-5.31e-03, 0.97])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.89 (95% CI [11.98, 13.80], t(104) = 27.73, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.84], t(104) = 0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.64])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.27], t(104) = 1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.44])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.74], t(104) = 1.02, p = 0.309; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.61])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.43 (95% CI [9.70, 11.16], t(104) = 27.90, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.98, 95% CI [-2.01, 0.04], t(104) = -1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.02])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.51, 0.33], t(104) = -1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.15])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.39, 95% CI [0.08, 2.71], t(104) = 2.08, p = 0.038; Std. beta = 0.63, 95% CI [0.04, 1.22])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.00 (95% CI [27.72, 34.28], t(104) = 18.54, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.78, 95% CI [-6.38, 2.82], t(104) = -0.76, p = 0.449; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.28])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-2.22, 2.42], t(104) = 0.09, p = 0.932; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.24])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.75, 95% CI [-4.07, 2.58], t(104) = -0.44, p = 0.660; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.26])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.51 (95% CI [20.88, 24.15], t(104) = 27.00, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-2.06, 2.53], t(104) = 0.20, p = 0.840; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.51])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-1.91, 0.52], t(104) = -1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.10])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-2.33, 1.14], t(104) = -0.67, p = 0.503; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.23])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.41e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.37 (95% CI [23.39, 27.36], t(104) = 25.04, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-2.22, 3.36], t(104) = 0.40, p = 0.687; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.57])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.02, 95% CI [-2.79, 0.74], t(104) = -1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.13])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.91, 3.15], t(104) = 0.48, p = 0.631; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.53])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.26 (95% CI [16.94, 21.58], t(104) = 16.25, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.88, 95% CI [-0.38, 6.14], t(104) = 1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.87])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-1.60, 3.06], t(104) = 0.62, p = 0.538; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.43])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.19, 95% CI [-4.52, 2.14], t(104) = -0.70, p = 0.484; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.30])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.92e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.89 (95% CI [9.62, 12.15], t(104) = 16.87, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-1.05, 2.50], t(104) = 0.80, p = 0.423; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.67])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.51], t(104) = 0.82, p = 0.411; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.41])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.11, 95% CI [-2.63, 0.41], t(104) = -1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.11])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.37 (95% CI [13.49, 17.25], t(104) = 16.01, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-3.26, 2.02], t(104) = -0.46, p = 0.645; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.36])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.75, 2.80], t(104) = 1.13, p = 0.257; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.50])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.53, 95% CI [-4.07, 1.01], t(104) = -1.18, p = 0.237; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.18])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.94 (95% CI [19.81, 24.07], t(104) = 20.19, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-2.29, 3.69], t(104) = 0.46, p = 0.648; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.57])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.61], t(104) = 0.58, p = 0.563; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.41])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.61, 95% CI [-4.49, 1.27], t(104) = -1.10, p = 0.273; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.20])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.54e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.26 (95% CI [14.82, 17.69], t(104) = 22.16, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-1.44, 2.60], t(104) = 0.56, p = 0.576; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.60])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.23, 1.59], t(104) = 0.25, p = 0.802; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.37])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-1.65, 2.39], t(104) = 0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.56])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.26 (95% CI [12.25, 14.26], t(104) = 25.88, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.64, 2.18], t(104) = 1.07, p = 0.284; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.71])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-2.02, 0.17], t(104) = -1.65, p = 0.098; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.06])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.67, 2.46], t(104) = 1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.80])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.66 (95% CI [15.68, 17.63], t(104) = 33.52, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.23, 95% CI [-0.14, 2.60], t(104) = 1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.87])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.16], t(104) = 0.61, p = 0.545; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.46, 1.07], t(104) = -0.30, p = 0.766; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.36])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.89 (95% CI [10.86, 12.91], t(104) = 22.74, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.86, 95% CI [0.43, 3.30], t(104) = 2.54, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.59, 95% CI [0.13, 1.04])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.85], t(104) = 1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.58])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-2.25, 0.49], t(104) = -1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.15])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.54 (95% CI [26.75, 30.34], t(104) = 31.18, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.10, 95% CI [0.58, 5.62], t(104) = 2.41, p = 0.016; Std. beta = 0.55, 95% CI [0.10, 1.00])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [-0.37, 2.66], t(104) = 1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.48])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-3.21, 1.12], t(104) = -0.95, p = 0.343; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.20])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.35e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.74 (95% CI [24.58, 30.90], t(104) = 17.20, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.41, 95% CI [-5.85, 3.03], t(104) = -0.62, p = 0.534; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.31])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-1.46, 3.04], t(104) = 0.69, p = 0.491; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.31])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.98, 95% CI [-4.19, 2.24], t(104) = -0.59, p = 0.552; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.23])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.89 (95% CI [12.23, 15.54], t(104) = 16.47, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-1.15, 3.49], t(104) = 0.99, p = 0.323; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.71])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.80], t(104) = 0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.36])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-1.71, 2.64], t(104) = 0.42, p = 0.672; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.53])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.39e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.23 (95% CI [14.91, 17.54], t(104) = 24.20, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-1.07, 2.62], t(104) = 0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.67])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.82, 1.50], t(104) = 0.58, p = 0.562; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.38])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-2.02, 1.30], t(104) = -0.43, p = 0.668; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.33])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.11 (95% CI [27.32, 32.91], t(104) = 21.10, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.94, 95% CI [-1.99, 5.87], t(104) = 0.97, p = 0.333; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.70])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.80, 3.05], t(104) = 0.50, p = 0.614; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.37])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-3.36, 3.58], t(104) = 0.06, p = 0.950; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.43])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.28) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.86 (95% CI [12.39, 13.33], t(104) = 53.70, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.27], t(104) = -1.14, p = 0.252; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.20])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.85], t(104) = 0.45, p = 0.651; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.61])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.16], t(104) = 0.34, p = 0.731; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.83])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.19e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.80 (95% CI [13.67, 15.93], t(104) = 25.71, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-1.36, 1.81], t(104) = 0.28, p = 0.778; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.54])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.93], t(104) = -0.57, p = 0.569; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.27])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.52, 2.22], t(104) = 0.36, p = 0.716; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.66])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.84e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.51 (95% CI [12.17, 14.86], t(104) = 19.63, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-1.88, 1.91], t(104) = 0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = 3.36e-03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.48])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.57, 1.32], t(104) = -0.17, p = 0.866; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.33])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-1.81, 2.32], t(104) = 0.24, p = 0.810; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.58])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.31 (95% CI [26.07, 30.56], t(104) = 24.67, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-2.92, 3.40], t(104) = 0.15, p = 0.881; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.50])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-2.99, 1.96], t(104) = -0.40, p = 0.686; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-2.94, 4.13], t(104) = 0.33, p = 0.741; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.61])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.11 (95% CI [17.77, 20.46], t(104) = 27.93, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-1.08, 2.69], t(104) = 0.83, p = 0.404; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.66])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.41, 0.88], t(104) = -0.45, p = 0.651; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.22])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-2.03, 1.24], t(104) = -0.48, p = 0.632; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.31])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.46) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.34e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.31 (95% CI [13.48, 15.15], t(104) = 33.50, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.75], t(104) = 0.96, p = 0.338; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.70])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.91, 1.26], t(104) = 0.32, p = 0.752; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.51])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.86, 1.25], t(104) = -0.39, p = 0.699; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.50])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.26 (95% CI [11.21, 13.31], t(104) = 22.91, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.90, 95% CI [-3.37, -0.42], t(104) = -2.52, p = 0.012; Std. beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.05, -0.13])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.47], t(104) = -1.03, p = 0.302; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.14])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.47, 2.35], t(104) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.73])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.57 (95% CI [9.34, 11.80], t(104) = 16.86, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-2.85, 0.60], t(104) = -1.28, p = 0.201; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.16])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.19], t(104) = 0.40, p = 0.692; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.31])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.48, 0.35], t(104) = -1.47, p = 0.141; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.09])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.49 (95% CI [9.24, 11.73], t(104) = 16.50, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.57, 95% CI [-3.32, 0.18], t(104) = -1.76, p = 0.079; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.05])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.52, 0.90], t(104) = -0.50, p = 0.615; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-2.15, 1.31], t(104) = -0.47, p = 0.636; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.34])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.66 (95% CI [7.36, 9.96], t(104) = 13.05, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-2.48, 1.17], t(104) = -0.71, p = 0.481; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.30])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [0.02, 2.02], t(104) = 2.00, p = 0.045; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [5.53e-03, 0.52])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.82, 95% CI [-3.25, -0.39], t(104) = -2.49, p = 0.013; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.84, -0.10])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.71 (95% CI [26.20, 33.22], t(104) = 16.59, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.35, 95% CI [-8.28, 1.58], t(104) = -1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.15])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-1.54, 3.57], t(104) = 0.78, p = 0.436; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.33])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.34, 95% CI [-6.99, 0.32], t(104) = -1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.03])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	354.462	362.564	-174.231	348.462
recovery_stage_a	random	6	358.794	374.997	-173.397	346.794	1.668	3	0.644
recovery_stage_b	null	3	526.165	534.267	-260.083	520.165
recovery_stage_b	random	6	530.507	546.710	-259.254	518.507	1.658	3	0.646
ras_confidence	null	3	644.264	652.365	-319.132	638.264
ras_confidence	random	6	648.203	664.406	-318.102	636.203	2.061	3	0.560
ras_willingness	null	3	443.085	451.187	-218.543	437.085
ras_willingness	random	6	443.865	460.068	-215.932	431.865	5.220	3	0.156
ras_goal	null	3	547.991	556.092	-270.995	541.991
ras_goal	random	6	549.547	565.749	-268.773	537.547	4.444	3	0.217
ras_reliance	null	3	510.880	518.982	-252.440	504.880
ras_reliance	random	6	507.870	524.073	-247.935	495.870	9.010	3	0.029
ras_domination	null	3	483.444	491.545	-238.722	477.444
ras_domination	random	6	483.750	499.953	-235.875	471.750	5.693	3	0.128
symptom	null	3	768.904	777.005	-381.452	762.904
symptom	random	6	773.830	790.033	-380.915	761.830	1.074	3	0.783
slof_work	null	3	623.548	631.649	-308.774	617.548
slof_work	random	6	624.242	640.445	-306.121	612.242	5.306	3	0.151
slof_relationship	null	3	676.017	684.119	-335.009	670.017
slof_relationship	random	6	680.194	696.397	-334.097	668.194	1.824	3	0.610
satisfaction	null	3	720.123	728.225	-357.062	714.123
satisfaction	random	6	723.011	739.214	-355.505	711.011	3.113	3	0.375
mhc_emotional	null	3	573.163	581.265	-283.582	567.163
mhc_emotional	random	6	576.804	593.007	-282.402	564.804	2.359	3	0.501
mhc_social	null	3	668.866	676.967	-331.433	662.866
mhc_social	random	6	672.533	688.736	-330.266	660.533	2.333	3	0.506
mhc_psychological	null	3	695.178	703.279	-344.589	689.178
mhc_psychological	random	6	699.842	716.045	-343.921	687.842	1.336	3	0.721
resilisnce	null	3	611.266	619.368	-302.633	605.266
resilisnce	random	6	616.134	632.336	-302.067	604.134	1.133	3	0.769
social_provision	null	3	543.397	551.499	-268.699	537.397
social_provision	random	6	544.212	560.415	-266.106	532.212	5.185	3	0.159
els_value_living	null	3	522.406	530.508	-258.203	516.406
els_value_living	random	6	524.913	541.115	-256.456	512.913	3.494	3	0.322
els_life_fulfill	null	3	540.608	548.709	-267.304	534.608
els_life_fulfill	random	6	538.139	554.342	-263.070	526.139	8.468	3	0.037
els	null	3	655.268	663.369	-324.634	649.268
els	random	6	654.046	670.249	-321.023	642.046	7.222	3	0.065
social_connect	null	3	761.195	769.296	-377.597	755.195
social_connect	random	6	766.073	782.275	-377.036	754.073	1.122	3	0.772
shs_agency	null	3	638.534	646.635	-316.267	632.534
shs_agency	random	6	642.158	658.361	-315.079	630.158	2.375	3	0.498
shs_pathway	null	3	583.662	591.764	-288.831	577.662
shs_pathway	random	6	588.763	604.966	-288.382	576.763	0.899	3	0.826
shs	null	3	749.439	757.540	-371.719	743.439
shs	random	6	753.776	769.979	-370.888	741.776	1.663	3	0.645
esteem	null	3	390.331	398.432	-192.165	384.331
esteem	random	6	393.943	410.146	-190.972	381.943	2.388	3	0.496
mlq_search	null	3	568.422	576.523	-281.211	562.422
mlq_search	random	6	573.873	590.076	-280.936	561.873	0.549	3	0.908
mlq_presence	null	3	602.090	610.192	-298.045	596.090
mlq_presence	random	6	608.018	624.221	-298.009	596.018	0.072	3	0.995
mlq	null	3	716.490	724.591	-355.245	710.490
mlq	random	6	722.232	738.434	-355.116	710.232	0.258	3	0.968
empower	null	3	586.859	594.961	-290.430	580.859
empower	random	6	590.798	607.000	-289.399	578.798	2.062	3	0.560
ismi_resistance	null	3	510.103	518.205	-252.052	504.103
ismi_resistance	random	6	515.156	531.359	-251.578	503.156	0.947	3	0.814
ismi_discrimation	null	3	544.293	552.394	-269.147	538.293
ismi_discrimation	random	6	543.494	559.697	-265.747	531.494	6.799	3	0.079
sss_affective	null	3	567.334	575.436	-280.667	561.334
sss_affective	random	6	567.551	583.754	-277.776	555.551	5.783	3	0.123
sss_behavior	null	3	583.338	591.439	-288.669	577.338
sss_behavior	random	6	583.848	600.051	-285.924	571.848	5.490	3	0.139
sss_cognitive	null	3	578.118	586.219	-286.059	572.118
sss_cognitive	random	6	576.443	592.646	-282.221	564.443	7.675	3	0.053
sss	null	3	791.582	799.684	-392.791	785.582
sss	random	6	790.865	807.068	-389.432	778.865	6.717	3	0.081

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	35	3.14 ± 1.22		36	3.14 ± 1.22		0.989	0.004
recovery_stage_a	2nd	20	3.28 ± 1.20	-0.138	19	3.48 ± 1.20	-0.348	0.597	-0.205
recovery_stage_b	1st	35	17.86 ± 2.69		36	18.03 ± 2.69		0.790	-0.083
recovery_stage_b	2nd	20	17.52 ± 2.61	0.162	19	18.56 ± 2.60	-0.257	0.219	-0.502
ras_confidence	1st	35	29.71 ± 5.06		36	30.94 ± 5.06		0.309	-0.460
ras_confidence	2nd	20	30.08 ± 4.47	-0.137	19	31.56 ± 4.41	-0.231	0.300	-0.554
ras_willingness	1st	35	11.94 ± 2.01		36	12.28 ± 2.01		0.484	-0.320
ras_willingness	2nd	20	11.30 ± 1.77	0.610	19	12.12 ± 1.74	0.154	0.152	-0.775
ras_goal	1st	35	17.51 ± 3.15		36	17.53 ± 3.15		0.986	-0.007
ras_goal	2nd	20	16.59 ± 2.84	0.507	19	18.14 ± 2.81	-0.338	0.090	-0.852
ras_reliance	1st	35	12.89 ± 2.75		36	13.44 ± 2.75		0.394	-0.422
ras_reliance	2nd	20	13.36 ± 2.38	-0.357	19	14.51 ± 2.34	-0.806	0.130	-0.870
ras_domination	1st	35	10.43 ± 2.21		36	9.44 ± 2.21		0.064	0.626
ras_domination	2nd	20	9.84 ± 2.11	0.373	19	10.25 ± 2.10	-0.512	0.546	-0.259
symptom	1st	35	31.00 ± 9.89		36	29.22 ± 9.89		0.451	0.467
symptom	2nd	20	31.10 ± 8.22	-0.027	19	28.58 ± 8.03	0.169	0.334	0.663
slof_work	1st	35	22.51 ± 4.93		36	22.75 ± 4.93		0.841	-0.118
slof_work	2nd	20	21.82 ± 4.13	0.350	19	21.46 ± 4.04	0.648	0.785	0.180
slof_relationship	1st	35	25.37 ± 5.99		36	25.94 ± 5.99		0.688	-0.196
slof_relationship	2nd	20	24.35 ± 5.21	0.350	19	25.54 ± 5.12	0.139	0.473	-0.407
satisfaction	1st	35	19.26 ± 7.01		36	22.14 ± 7.01		0.087	-0.741
satisfaction	2nd	20	19.99 ± 6.27	-0.188	19	21.68 ± 6.19	0.117	0.398	-0.436
mhc_emotional	1st	35	10.89 ± 3.82		36	11.61 ± 3.82		0.426	-0.413
mhc_emotional	2nd	20	11.33 ± 3.27	-0.254	19	10.95 ± 3.21	0.378	0.713	0.218
mhc_social	1st	35	15.37 ± 5.68		36	14.75 ± 5.68		0.646	0.211
mhc_social	2nd	20	16.40 ± 5.00	-0.348	19	14.24 ± 4.93	0.172	0.178	0.730
mhc_psychological	1st	35	21.94 ± 6.43		36	22.64 ± 6.43		0.650	-0.208
mhc_psychological	2nd	20	22.54 ± 5.66	-0.178	19	21.62 ± 5.58	0.304	0.612	0.274
resilisnce	1st	35	16.26 ± 4.34		36	16.83 ± 4.34		0.577	-0.245
resilisnce	2nd	20	16.44 ± 3.86	-0.077	19	17.38 ± 3.81	-0.234	0.443	-0.402
social_provision	1st	35	13.26 ± 3.03		36	14.03 ± 3.03		0.287	-0.419
social_provision	2nd	20	12.33 ± 2.77	0.502	19	14.00 ± 2.74	0.013	0.061	-0.907
els_value_living	1st	35	16.66 ± 2.94		36	17.89 ± 2.94		0.081	-0.840
els_value_living	2nd	20	16.93 ± 2.57	-0.186	19	17.97 ± 2.52	-0.055	0.205	-0.709
els_life_fulfill	1st	35	11.89 ± 3.09		36	13.75 ± 3.09		0.013	-1.172
els_life_fulfill	2nd	20	12.78 ± 2.72	-0.563	19	13.76 ± 2.68	-0.009	0.259	-0.617
els	1st	35	28.54 ± 5.42		36	31.64 ± 5.42		0.018	-1.239
els	2nd	20	29.69 ± 4.65	-0.459	19	31.74 ± 4.57	-0.040	0.168	-0.820
social_connect	1st	35	27.74 ± 9.54		36	26.33 ± 9.54		0.536	0.383
social_connect	2nd	20	28.53 ± 7.93	-0.214	19	26.15 ± 7.75	0.051	0.345	0.648
shs_agency	1st	35	13.89 ± 4.99		36	15.06 ± 4.99		0.326	-0.464
shs_agency	2nd	20	14.16 ± 4.37	-0.110	19	15.80 ± 4.30	-0.296	0.240	-0.650
shs_pathway	1st	35	16.23 ± 3.97		36	17.00 ± 3.97		0.415	-0.402
shs_pathway	2nd	20	16.57 ± 3.44	-0.179	19	16.98 ± 3.38	0.010	0.709	-0.213
shs	1st	35	30.11 ± 8.45		36	32.06 ± 8.45		0.336	-0.484
shs	2nd	20	30.74 ± 7.29	-0.156	19	32.79 ± 7.17	-0.184	0.377	-0.512
esteem	1st	35	12.86 ± 1.42		36	12.47 ± 1.42		0.255	0.316
esteem	2nd	20	13.02 ± 1.41	-0.131	19	12.81 ± 1.41	-0.273	0.640	0.174
mlq_search	1st	35	14.80 ± 3.41		36	15.03 ± 3.41		0.779	-0.103
mlq_search	2nd	20	14.42 ± 3.17	0.172	19	14.99 ± 3.15	0.015	0.571	-0.259
mlq_presence	1st	35	13.51 ± 4.07		36	13.53 ± 4.07		0.989	-0.006
mlq_presence	2nd	20	13.39 ± 3.71	0.051	19	13.66 ± 3.67	-0.053	0.822	-0.110
mlq	1st	35	28.31 ± 6.79		36	28.56 ± 6.79		0.881	-0.058
mlq	2nd	20	27.80 ± 6.23	0.123	19	28.64 ± 6.17	-0.021	0.674	-0.201
empower	1st	35	19.11 ± 4.05		36	19.92 ± 4.05		0.406	-0.425
empower	2nd	20	18.85 ± 3.48	0.140	19	19.25 ± 3.42	0.352	0.717	-0.213
ismi_resistance	1st	35	14.31 ± 2.53		36	14.89 ± 2.53		0.341	-0.307
ismi_resistance	2nd	20	14.49 ± 2.43	-0.094	19	14.76 ± 2.42	0.070	0.731	-0.143
ismi_discrimation	1st	35	12.26 ± 3.17		36	10.36 ± 3.17		0.014	1.160
ismi_discrimation	2nd	20	11.74 ± 2.78	0.317	19	10.78 ± 2.74	-0.259	0.283	0.584
sss_affective	1st	35	10.57 ± 3.71		36	9.44 ± 3.71		0.204	0.690
sss_affective	2nd	20	10.77 ± 3.16	-0.123	19	8.58 ± 3.09	0.529	0.031	1.342
sss_behavior	1st	35	10.49 ± 3.76		36	8.92 ± 3.76		0.083	0.778
sss_behavior	2nd	20	10.17 ± 3.34	0.154	19	8.19 ± 3.29	0.361	0.064	0.985
sss_cognitive	1st	35	8.66 ± 3.92		36	8.00 ± 3.92		0.483	0.400
sss_cognitive	2nd	20	9.68 ± 3.31	-0.621	19	7.20 ± 3.24	0.486	0.020	1.507
sss	1st	35	29.71 ± 10.59		36	26.36 ± 10.59		0.186	0.800
sss	2nd	20	30.73 ± 8.84	-0.242	19	24.04 ± 8.64	0.554	0.019	1.596

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(98.43) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.58 to 0.57)

2st

t(105.65) = 0.53, p = 0.597, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.96)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(95.05) = 0.27, p = 0.790, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.44)

2st

t(105.69) = 1.24, p = 0.219, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.62 to 2.69)

ras_confidence

1st

t(80.73) = 1.02, p = 0.309, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-1.16 to 3.62)

2st

t(104.84) = 1.04, p = 0.300, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-1.34 to 4.30)

ras_willingness

1st

t(80.41) = 0.70, p = 0.484, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.28)

2st

t(104.66) = 1.44, p = 0.152, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.93)

ras_goal

1st

t(83.20) = 0.02, p = 0.986, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.47 to 1.50)

2st

t(105.69) = 1.71, p = 0.090, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (-0.25 to 3.34)

ras_reliance

1st

t(78.57) = 0.86, p = 0.394, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.74 to 1.86)

2st

t(103.24) = 1.53, p = 0.130, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.65)

ras_domination

1st

t(91.46) = -1.87, p = 0.064, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-2.03 to 0.06)

2st

t(105.84) = 0.61, p = 0.546, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.74)

symptom

1st

t(74.89) = -0.76, p = 0.451, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-6.45 to 2.90)

2st

t(97.00) = -0.97, p = 0.334, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-7.69 to 2.64)

slof_work

1st

t(75.53) = 0.20, p = 0.841, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.10 to 2.57)

2st

t(98.52) = -0.27, p = 0.785, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.96 to 2.24)

slof_relationship

1st

t(78.82) = 0.40, p = 0.688, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-2.26 to 3.41)

2st

t(103.48) = 0.72, p = 0.473, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-2.09 to 4.47)

satisfaction

1st

t(82.02) = 1.73, p = 0.087, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-0.43 to 6.19)

2st

t(105.38) = 0.85, p = 0.398, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-2.26 to 5.65)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(77.63) = 0.80, p = 0.426, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.08 to 2.53)

2st

t(102.15) = -0.37, p = 0.713, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-2.44 to 1.68)

mhc_social

1st

t(80.28) = -0.46, p = 0.646, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-3.30 to 2.06)

2st

t(104.59) = -1.35, p = 0.178, Cohen d = 0.73, 95% CI (-5.31 to 1.00)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(80.30) = 0.46, p = 0.650, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-2.34 to 3.73)

2st

t(104.60) = -0.51, p = 0.612, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-4.49 to 2.66)

resilisnce

1st

t(81.40) = 0.56, p = 0.577, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.47 to 2.63)

2st

t(105.15) = 0.77, p = 0.443, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.49 to 3.38)

social_provision

1st

t(84.94) = 1.07, p = 0.287, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.66 to 2.20)

2st

t(105.93) = 1.89, p = 0.061, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (-0.08 to 3.42)

els_value_living

1st

t(79.29) = 1.76, p = 0.081, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (-0.16 to 2.62)

2st

t(103.89) = 1.28, p = 0.205, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.66)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(80.03) = 2.54, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -1.17, 95% CI (0.40 to 3.33)

2st

t(104.43) = 1.14, p = 0.259, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.69)

els

1st

t(77.69) = 2.41, p = 0.018, Cohen d = -1.24, 95% CI (0.54 to 5.66)

2st

t(102.23) = 1.39, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (-0.88 to 4.98)

social_connect

1st

t(74.92) = -0.62, p = 0.536, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-5.92 to 3.10)

2st

t(97.08) = -0.95, p = 0.345, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-7.37 to 2.60)

shs_agency

1st

t(79.62) = 0.99, p = 0.326, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-1.19 to 3.53)

2st

t(104.14) = 1.18, p = 0.240, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-1.11 to 4.39)

shs_pathway

1st

t(78.64) = 0.82, p = 0.415, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.10 to 2.65)

2st

t(103.30) = 0.37, p = 0.709, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.76 to 2.58)

shs

1st

t(78.26) = 0.97, p = 0.336, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-2.05 to 5.93)

2st

t(102.91) = 0.89, p = 0.377, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-2.54 to 6.65)

esteem

1st

t(101.28) = -1.14, p = 0.255, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.28)

2st

t(105.71) = -0.47, p = 0.640, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.68)

mlq_search

1st

t(87.52) = 0.28, p = 0.779, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.38 to 1.83)

2st

t(106.00) = 0.57, p = 0.571, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.58)

mlq_presence

1st

t(84.25) = 0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.91 to 1.94)

2st

t(105.86) = 0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.08 to 2.61)

mlq

1st

t(85.28) = 0.15, p = 0.881, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-2.96 to 3.45)

2st

t(105.95) = 0.42, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-3.10 to 4.77)

empower

1st

t(77.89) = 0.83, p = 0.406, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-1.11 to 2.72)

2st

t(102.49) = 0.36, p = 0.717, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.79 to 2.60)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(93.42) = 0.96, p = 0.341, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.77)

2st

t(105.75) = 0.35, p = 0.731, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.27 to 1.81)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(80.12) = -2.52, p = 0.014, Cohen d = 1.16, 95% CI (-3.39 to -0.40)

2st

t(104.49) = -1.08, p = 0.283, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-2.71 to 0.80)

sss_affective

1st

t(76.85) = -1.28, p = 0.204, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-2.88 to 0.63)

2st

t(101.02) = -2.19, p = 0.031, Cohen d = 1.34, 95% CI (-4.18 to -0.21)

sss_behavior

1st

t(81.09) = -1.76, p = 0.083, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-3.35 to 0.21)

2st

t(105.01) = -1.87, p = 0.064, Cohen d = 0.99, 95% CI (-4.09 to 0.12)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(76.05) = -0.71, p = 0.483, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-2.51 to 1.20)

2st

t(99.60) = -2.36, p = 0.020, Cohen d = 1.51, 95% CI (-4.56 to -0.40)

sss

1st

t(75.24) = -1.33, p = 0.186, Cohen d = 0.80, 95% CI (-8.36 to 1.66)

2st

t(97.85) = -2.39, p = 0.019, Cohen d = 1.60, 95% CI (-12.25 to -1.13)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(52.74) = 1.16, p = 0.505, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.94)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(50.44) = 0.84, p = 0.804, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.73 to 1.78)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(42.62) = 0.73, p = 0.936, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.08 to 2.32)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(42.47) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.50)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(43.85) = 1.08, p = 0.574, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.76)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(41.57) = 2.54, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.92)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(48.28) = 1.67, p = 0.203, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.77)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(39.79) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.11 to 1.82)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(40.10) = -2.03, p = 0.098, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-2.58 to -0.01)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(41.69) = -0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.27 to 1.46)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(43.26) = -0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.92 to 2.01)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(41.11) = -1.19, p = 0.482, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.79 to 0.46)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(42.40) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-2.39 to 1.37)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(42.41) = -0.96, p = 0.680, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-3.15 to 1.11)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(42.96) = 0.74, p = 0.923, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.04)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(44.74) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.18 to 1.13)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(41.92) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.02)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(42.28) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.00 to 1.03)

els

1st vs 2st

t(41.14) = 0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.50 to 1.70)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(39.81) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.57 to 2.19)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(42.08) = 0.94, p = 0.708, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.86 to 2.36)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(41.60) = -0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.25 to 1.21)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(41.41) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.83 to 3.30)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(55.04) = 0.92, p = 0.724, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.06)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(46.10) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.42 to 1.35)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(44.39) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.40 to 1.66)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(44.92) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.53 to 2.70)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(41.24) = -1.11, p = 0.548, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.87 to 0.55)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(49.43) = -0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.02)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(42.32) = 0.82, p = 0.833, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.46)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(40.73) = -1.66, p = 0.208, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.91 to 0.19)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(42.80) = -1.15, p = 0.515, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.01 to 0.55)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(40.35) = -1.52, p = 0.270, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.86 to 0.26)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(39.96) = -1.73, p = 0.181, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-5.03 to 0.38)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(51.11) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.72)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(49.06) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.90)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(42.07) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.30 to 2.03)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(41.93) = -1.98, p = 0.109, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.01)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(43.17) = -1.66, p = 0.210, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.04 to 0.20)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(41.12) = 1.15, p = 0.511, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.30)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(47.13) = -1.24, p = 0.441, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.36)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(39.53) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.30 to 2.50)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(39.80) = -1.12, p = 0.537, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.95 to 0.56)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(41.23) = -1.13, p = 0.528, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-2.85 to 0.80)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(42.64) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.68 to 3.14)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(40.71) = 0.82, p = 0.836, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.54)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(41.87) = 1.13, p = 0.531, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.86)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(41.88) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.49 to 2.67)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(42.37) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.64)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(43.97) = -1.64, p = 0.215, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-2.06 to 0.21)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(41.44) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.19)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(41.76) = 1.83, p = 0.150, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.89)

els

1st vs 2st

t(40.74) = 1.48, p = 0.293, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.71)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(39.54) = 0.69, p = 0.992, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.53 to 3.11)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(41.58) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.85)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(41.15) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.54)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(40.99) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.88 to 3.13)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(53.16) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.87)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(45.18) = -0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.73 to 0.97)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(43.66) = -0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.62 to 1.37)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(44.13) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.07 to 2.05)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(40.83) = -0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.45 to 0.92)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(48.16) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.30)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(41.80) = -1.03, p = 0.619, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.50)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(40.37) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.23)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(42.23) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.94)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(40.02) = 2.00, p = 0.105, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.01 to 2.05)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(39.67) = 0.78, p = 0.884, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.63 to 3.65)

Pathway Summary

Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance